Lindsey Graham: 3,000 GIs in Iraq a 'disaster'

Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Monday that if the White House supports a plan reportedly under consideration to keep just 3,000 troops in Iraq, it would stand as “one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy.”

The South Carolina Republican told “Fox and Friends” that if President Barack Obama does choose to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq down to 3,000 next year, the decision would likely prove disastrous.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Graham on Iraq troop numbers

POLITICO 44

“It would be one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy to lose Iraq because you had 3,000 troops when you need 10 to 15 [thousand],” said Graham, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Last week, Fox News reported the plan for 3,000 troops had already been approved, but White House spokesman Jay Carney flatly denied that. The New York Times reported the following day that a final decision had not been made but that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta backed the plan to keep a small force in Iraq next year.

Graham said 3,000 troops is not enough to do the missions necessary to protect American civilians, gather intelligence and do counterterrorism work on the ground.

“No general has suggested anywhere near 3,000 troops,” Graham said. “It’s okay as commander in chief to disagree with the generals, but it’s not okay to take their advice and throw it in the garbage can. No one has suggested anything really from the Pentagon below 15 to 16,000.”

Graham slammed the president for considering the reported proposal, calling it a “formula for disaster.”

“It wasn’t an option presented to the president,” he said. “It was an option created by the president. This is the Obama-Biden plan in Afghanistan, and 3,000 troops in Iraq would be a formula for disaster — and Iran would love that. They’re trying to destabilize Iraq.”

It would be nice and refreshing if Sen. Graham had the integrity to admit that the invasion of Iraq was the worst decison by an administration since expanding the war in Vietnam; that it was based on lies and manipulation of intelligence; that there were no WMD, no Al Qaida training camps or an Al Qaida connection at all; that our actual 911 enemy Al Queda made up less than five percent of all US enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq; that the Bush-Cheney neo-con-artist Republicans rushed in their 435-plus, GOP-approved war profiteers who not only failed in the nation-building but posted $60 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse, plus another $6.6 billion in stolen Iraqi funds.

Left to Republicans, America would have a major and permanent presence in Iraq as shown by the largest, more opulent US embassey in the world in Baghdad along with military bases and prisons. The Republicans have long since lost their credibility on the two, unfunded wars combined at 18 years and projected to cost $5 trillion adding to the $3.6 trillion spent nationwide on security following 911. Republicans have proven to not only be the war-profiteers but the 911-fear security profiteers as well. Missed out on the Bush-Cheney government gravy-train? Most of Americans lost out as well.

skint: I noticed you have not grown any smarter through your daily postings. It was Bush-Cheney whose needless and false invasion of Iraq gave aid and comfort to Shiite Iran. Remember when Cheney said the Iraq war would be short and could be paid for by Iraqi oil? The war was fought for oil with the Iraqi oil fields secured first by the military while the rest of the country dissolved into chaos, looting, and insurgency, guess what country won the largest oil contract--China our Communist benefactor.

Graham said 3,000 troops is not enough to do the missions necessary to protect American civilians, gather intelligence and do counterterrorism work on the ground.

Could this be the beginning of getting out of Iraq in total? One thing Sen. Graham has absolutely right is troop withdrawal will heavily depend on US civilian contractors and employees leaving Iraq. Is Halliburton pulling out yet?

These contractors rely on US military protection and federal dollars for their existance. As I've stated before as long as contractors remain embedded in Iraq so will the US military.

Had Sen. Graham and his fellow members in the House and Senate had actually declared war against Iraq in 2003 instead of shirking their constitutional duty, he might actually have more of a say in the drawdown of forces now.

I sure don't see him rushing a bill through that would fund the 15,000 troops he wants by raising taxes or cutting other spending to pay for it either.

But since Iraq has been 1 expensive blunder after another and Iran taking over is all but inevitable, there is no point in staying any longer.

Good luck trying to blame all the consequences of the misguided U.S. invasion on the details of how we get out.

Graham has it backwards when he says “It would be one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy to lose Iraq." One of the biggest blunders ever was unnecessarily getting involved with this tar baby in the first place.

He's also wrong in saying that Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq - it's now well under Iran's influence, due to the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, and Iran is happy to keep it that way.

Also, Graham may not know this, but the Iraqi government theoretically has something to say about hosting U.S. troops.

“It would be one of the biggest blunders in American foreign policy to lose Iraq because you had 3,000 troops when you need 10 to 15 [thousand],” said Graham, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Actually Mr. Graham, the "biggest blunder" was our starting this war in the first place.

You want 10 - 15 thousand permanant troops in that god forsaken place - NO! 3K is too many! NOT ANOTHER DIME!